I don't really like "Log4jException". Log4j is a noun while Logging is a verb - it is not meant to imply an exception that applies to all of org.apache.logging but an exception performing logging within Log4j. As such, its current name and package seem quite appropriate to me.
Ralph On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I would expected a LoggingException to be in the org.apache.logging package > and be used by all org.apache.logging logging solutions, of which there is > only one now: Log4j, > > In org.apache.logging.log4j, I would expect us to have a Log4jException. > > I propose: > > (1) renaming org.apache.logging.log4j.LoggingException to > org.apache.logging.log4j.Log4jException > > or moving org.apache.logging.log4j.LoggingException to org.apache.logging. > > Since we are not talking about multiple Java logging frameworks, I prefer 1. > > Thoughts? > > Gary > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > JUnit in Action, Second Edition > Spring Batch in Action > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
